OK, but we have NO legal guidance on what the maximum force allowed is, so how can you train
to that standard. "When and to the degree" and "reasonably believes" are weasel phrases
that can quickly become your ticket straight to the jail house.

OTOH if you start by training to the minimum force necessary standard, you are less likely to
"overshoot," no pun meant, and exceed a reasonable amount of force. You also don't risk "accidental or negligent" discharges which might turn "force" to "lethal force" at times when "lethal force" isn't justified.
Similarly, you don't risk rash emotionally driven actions which may result in a death.

There are other problems when words are put to paper in Austin. No one is safe. But that's a different topic for a different forum.

I think the CHL class should be updated and use the use of force continuum that is trained by the state police (whichever state one is in) in their academy. It was not developed in a vacuum and should pretty much have been signed off on by the Attorney General of the state. As far as "overshooting" by using the minimum force model, as I said earlier unless you start with "pretty please" any force you use that is immediately effective could be called excessive. The only way you can show that the force used was the minimum necessary is to show that lesser force was actually attempted and failed.

November 25th, 2012, 06:59 PM

Hopyard

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcp1810

I think the CHL class should be updated and use the use of force continuum that is trained by the state police (whichever state one is in) in their academy. It was not developed in a vacuum and should pretty much have been signed off on by the Attorney General of the state. As far as "overshooting" by using the minimum force model, as I said earlier unless you start with "pretty please" any force you use that is immediately effective could be called excessive. The only way you can show that the force used was the minimum necessary is to show that lesser force was actually attempted and failed.

Agree, but I am not sure if that would be something the AG can sign off on or would take new legislation. Then too, if it added
time and cost to the course there would be lots of folks objecting.

November 25th, 2012, 07:45 PM

d2jlking

Quote:

Originally Posted by dben002

Hopyard....agreed 100%...lots of cowboys on this site. Don't know or understand or care about CC laws in their states or anywhere else. Scary. I've got a gun and I'll use it for any reason seems to be a continuing posture on this site. just saying......

I get your point....BUT......I think the main discussion Hopyard has brought to the table is what is justified by the law. In this particular situation the man with the gun defended himself. There is no knowledge as to whether he stopped a further beating. I don't think people (myself included) who say they would draw their weapon or return a punch are being "cowboys". I have a fair understanding of what is required of me by the law. However, when someone punches you in the face, determining whether your return punch is retaliatory or in defense will be difficult to do. I'd venture to say that a witness who watches you return a punch would say just that. As Hopyard said, it's not my job to teach a lesson at the point of a gun. I don't think this particular man was trying to teach a lesson. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was defending himself. I would never pull my own gun to teach a lesson. Punch me in the face, and my response will be based on my perceived ability to stop your assault. Maybe a return punch. Maybe running for my life. Maybe drawing my gun. I'm no cowboy, but treat me like a victim at your peril.

Basic story, someone cut in line, acted rowdy, and punched a license holder who then
pulled a gun. The license holder was not arrested.

I tend to disagree with that decision to not arrest. 1) Insufficient threat to the license holder,
2) Too much hazard to innocents nearby. 3) Perfect situation for pepper or better yet, some
deep self-control and retreat. 4) Being on line for a Black Friday sale violates the rules of stupid.

Thoughts from the gallery please.

My thoughts: It doesnt matter what I think. I wasn't there to see the stress, witness the punching, the threat levels, how badly he was victimized, etc... nor were you. It is one thing for you to place judgement on this man for pulling a firearm if you were there but you weren't. I bet your opinion was formulated by what was on your local liberal news channel all spun up like a tornado of engineered negative implications and publicity towards the man with a Gun.

I think that the man with a gun exercised great control in not squeezing a round off and dumping a worthless sack of excrement where he stood. I think he was exlemplary in his position to not pull the trigger and allow the perp to know that any further aggression would be met with a higher level of equalization. But then again I wasn't there so who am I to say any of this....

Just a hint at a way of thinking Mr. Hopyard. Now I am back off to what I was doing being a cowboy shooting everything that moves and justifying it perfectly only on this website and no where else simply because I am incapable of thinking in yours and others' acceptable way of normal.

November 25th, 2012, 07:55 PM

d2jlking

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaGunny

In North Carolina, "Simple Assault" does not justify the use of leathal force. So, if you can't use it...don't draw. My point is that we all need to know the relevant laws state laws. This is especially true if you're traveling through or or visiting a different state.

Fair enough. But did he use lethal force? No. He did however use the threat of lethal force to stop the assault.

November 25th, 2012, 08:11 PM

d2jlking

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Holy Cow

People keep writing this in this thread! I'm only on the 2nd or 3rd page.

You got punched. What if you didnt have a gun?????

Either you would retaliate otherwise or...since it was a BS random maneuver to cut in line and not even personal....WALK AWAY.

So far, not a single person has mentioned this option. Or attempting it.

And if we are carrying, then it is even MORE IMPORTANT to take the High Road and remove yourself. You dont just haul out a gun because you get punched....not if you can NOT pull the gun and leave.

Wut????

This seems strange to me?!?! could he have walked away? Yep, he could have tried retreating. In fact, in ALMOST EVERY situation, one could try and walk away. What if the BG gives chase, or keeps punching you? When exactly would you draw your gun? The article doesn't say how effective the punch was. Suppose the punch nearly knocked the victim unconscious, and his immediate reaction was to draw his weapon? You say walk away?? Ideally, all conflict would be resolved with one person being able and willing to walk away. I'm not foolish enough to believe that is the answer as a society. Act like a sheep, get preyed on by wolves. I'm not suggesting vigilante behavior. I AM suggesting that people have a right to their place in this world. You shouldn't always have to "walk away". This is a defensive carry forum, it's not surprising that a fair number of people here believe that, in this situation, they would have a right to defend themselves.

November 25th, 2012, 08:16 PM

d2jlking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I do not understand the LEOs decision on the scene. Our newspaper today (if you believe they got the story right) stated
that it was the gun owner who was acting rowdy and started the incident.

From today's "The Eagle" page A9-- "Witnesses reportedly told police that before he pulled out the gun, he had
behaved rudely and had provoked the situation."

.

Duh---Don't know if the paper messed the story up or what the heck actually happened there. If the above is true I don't see
why the license holder wasn't arrested.

Whoa! this wasn't in the original post, right? Kind of changes everything. I was never under the impression that the license holder was provoking this confrontation. Heck! it's a totally different story, deserving a totally different discussion.

November 25th, 2012, 08:24 PM

d2jlking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

In my limited experience, a punch to the jaw, face or side of the head, even if one is wearing some protective gear, can be
very disorienting. With zero regard for whether the license holder was justified or not, I think many of us
are deceiving ourselves if we think we could take a serious punch to the head and remain "together" enough to fight back with a gun while maintaining the needed level of self-control (not firing). I think the license holder was a miracle away from a murder
charge.

Hopyard- I ALWAYS enjoy your posts, because they are always well thought out, and they usually make me think. I have a TOTALLY different view on this. So many people in this thread have made a punch seem as though it's no justification for responding with the threat of force. You in fact, seem to feel the victim, could have and maybe should have been arrested for drawing his weapon. Yet, here, you state that a punch to the head can be disorienting. You know why that punch is disorienting? Because your brain has suffered a traumatic injury. THAT"S SERIOUS!! It's also the reason I, and apparently many others, would feel justified in defending ourselves with a gun. It's not always the right answer. May not have been right here. BUT a miracle away from a murder
charge. That's a real stretch. Unfortunately, with the internet these threads are linear. 7 pages into the conversation we have new info introduced that changes the appearance of the situation.

November 25th, 2012, 08:59 PM

sixgun

Black friday shopping=stooooooopid. I dont need that crap that bad to put up with stuff like that. Ron White says it to well You cant fix stupid.

November 25th, 2012, 09:20 PM

Hopyard

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangoseal

My thoughts: It doesnt matter what I think. I wasn't there to see the stress, witness the punching, the threat levels, how badly he was victimized, etc... nor were you. It is one thing for you to place judgement on this man for pulling a firearm if you were there but you weren't. I bet your opinion was formulated by what was on your local liberal news channel all spun up like a tornado of engineered negative implications and publicity towards the man with a Gun.

I think that the man with a gun exercised great control in not squeezing a round off and dumping a worthless sack of excrement where he stood. I think he was exlemplary in his position to not pull the trigger and allow the perp to know that any further aggression would be met with a higher level of equalization. But then again I wasn't there so who am I to say any of this....

Just a hint at a way of thinking Mr. Hopyard. Now I am back off to what I was doing being a cowboy shooting everything that moves and justifying it perfectly only on this website and no where else simply because I am incapable of thinking in yours and others' acceptable way of normal.

Sorry, but part in bold adds up to murder even in TX. The statutes have been posted earlier.

November 25th, 2012, 09:24 PM

framedcraig1

Agreed. No "real" harm...no "real" foul. I think that the LEO did a good job of not extending, or growing the situation to the next level. It IS a strange world we are living in folks. Glad no one was hurt badly.

What really surprises me is that most of the comments on the web site for the story actually support the person that drew the gun, of course it is a Texas new station web site so most people posting there are going to be from Texas I suppose.

November 25th, 2012, 10:10 PM

9MMare

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2jlking

This seems strange to me?!?! could he have walked away? Yep, he could have tried retreating. In fact, in ALMOST EVERY situation, one could try and walk away. What if the BG gives chase, or keeps punching you? When exactly would you draw your gun? The article doesn't say how effective the punch was. Suppose the punch nearly knocked the victim unconscious, and his immediate reaction was to draw his weapon? You say walk away?? Ideally, all conflict would be resolved with one person being able and willing to walk away. I'm not foolish enough to believe that is the answer as a society. Act like a sheep, get preyed on by wolves. I'm not suggesting vigilante behavior. I AM suggesting that people have a right to their place in this world. You shouldn't always have to "walk away". This is a defensive carry forum, it's not surprising that a fair number of people here believe that, in this situation, they would have a right to defend themselves.

You are certainly inferring much more than we know. I dont remember anyone mentioning that he couldnt retreat, that he was taken 'down' by the punch. He managed to draw, so he wasnt disabled. The assailant wanted to cut in line...why would he chase him down???? Some people choose to react, not think. I'd hope those of us carrying guns manage to think first.

Why dont you reply to my other posts...the ones where I ask about the judgement used in drawing a gun or even pepper spray in a crowded business *when the option to NOT do so exists.* As I also wrote...what if you werent carrying a gun? Would everyone else just have been beaten to death????? Good lord, talk about the very manifestation of, "if all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail."

November 25th, 2012, 10:19 PM

9MMare

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcp1810

I think the CHL class should be updated and use the use of force continuum that is trained by the state police (whichever state one is in) in their academy. .

Not every state even requires a class or training to get a CC permit. Yet ALL are required to know the laws...and use good judgement.

Not sure about how good that judgement is when you draw a firearm in a crowded business most likely out of anger. That man was not FORCED to stand there and take more abuse. Even if he did get involved in it as an argument beforehand...in both cases *IMO* he was wrong.

If you are carrying a firearm you do not get into stupid arguments that can escalate and you do not draw them in crowded places when you can avoid your assailant.

Even if you choose a 'Stand your Ground' stance, exactly what are you gaining when you could be endangering so many others unnecessarily? If you can de-escalate and leave? That would be ego, little more (just IMO).